Identity politics will destroy our country. Whatever happened to freedom of thought? Shameful
Rogan is mostly an opinion guy but he has spread covid disinformation and hosted guests like Alex Jones who say things like Sandy Hook was staged. That's not harmless self-expression. Spotify is under no obligation to host anyone's content and certainly not required to pay $100M for content that is detrimental to society.
Regarding your point about "harmful to society" I would argue that there are plenty of individuals (not myself) who would claim vulgar lyrics or promotion of drug use is "harmful to society" but I don't see those individuals having a voice and trying to cancel and deplatform those ideas.
One could easily argue that Joe does in fact not debate many of his guest and instead allow them to use his show as a platform if they so desire.
> Regarding your point about "harmful to society" I would argue that there are plenty of individuals (not myself) who would claim vulgar lyrics or promotion of drug use is "harmful to society" but I don't see those individuals having a voice and trying to cancel and deplatform those ideas.
Those individuals are still alive and loud depending on where you live.
I haven't watched a lot of JRE but in general I see nothing wrong with people having the time to layout their thoughts and opinions more or less uninterrupted for an extended period of time and then listen to rebuttals and debate in comments or separate blog posts, videos etc.
The other end is political debates or interviews with opinionated journalists where they barely have time to say a sentence at a time. This doesn't have to be bad but a lot of time its just bickering and platitudes. It doesn't provide much depth.
Spotify isn’t obligated it chosen too, those employees can either do their job or find another one.
Many people would consider[0] (not without zero justification) that Sanders is the most prominent USA representative of an ideology that has killed more people in the last century than any other ideology.
Do you really want to go down the path of mutual assured cancellation?
[0] no, I am not saying Sanders is a homicidal maniac, just in case people want to take that inference.
Remember when people used to say America invaded Iraq so it could control the oil? That was counter to the official reason for the invasion so, according to your idea, they were not entitled to publish that. It was also not harmless self-expression because it could have altered public opinion about a war, which can have serious consequences.
Going out on a limb here, but at one point everyone thought the world was flat. Preaching that the earth is actually round, was seen as a detriment to society. So much so that people got horrifically executed for it.
We don't know anything. So sensoring ideas because we don't like them, or they seem farfetched, is probably, a real detriment to society.
Maybe. More likely, at one point most people weren't concerned with more than the local topography.
> Preaching that the earth is actually round, was seen as a detriment to society. So much so that people got horrifically executed for it.
I won't say definitively that that never happened, but it certainly isn't something that there is any historical evidence I've ever heard of, and it sounds a lot like flat-earth mythology, possibly conflated with (exaggeration of) the actual heliocentrism controversy.
The referrence was to the Sun being the center of the solar system, and not the Earth. Apologies. Failure on my part. Memory is a fickle thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
EDIT: Sorry, only just now saw that another commenter already posted the same link.
Did you actually listen to that episode? I did, and he explicitly said that he no longer believes that.
It's rather ironic that you are arguing that we should respect facts in the same post.
I'll take your word that's what he said (so in that sense, you're right, it's a "fact"), but if you're giving him the benefit of the doubt...well, what could anyone say?
He's been held in contempt of court, de-platformed, has a DWI and, more damning, has made similar inflammatory claims since.
(1) - I just googled, apologies if I got the dates wrong.
It seems that certain people have somehow been declared "unpersons". The tactic is to develop a list of the 6 or so worst-sounding things they've ever done, always phrased in the shortest and most inflammatory way and devoid of any context or later explanations that might mitigate how bad they are. Then, any time that person's name comes up, a crowd of people appears to repeat those same sound bites in various combinations over and over again. The goal is not understanding, but to discredit and destroy people. Anybody who tries to provide context or mitigating factors for the selected sound bites may become a target of the destruction too.
Alex Jones is not an angel. But then a great many people in public life have done things that can appear damming when packaged into sound bites like this. What matters is not whether Alex Jones is good or bad, but who decides what persons this tactic will be deployed against.
What also matters is what kind of world we are building with this tactic. If somebody has done something bad, do they not deserve a chance to explain themselves, give their side of the story? Maybe roll back some ideas that turned out to be a mistake. If somebody has been declared to be an unperson somehow, and the goal is to do our best to prevent them from speaking at all in any forum by shouting them and any supporters down like this, well exactly what is it that we want them to do?
However .. this quote from H.L.Mencken:
> “For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
I know we're not talking about laws here (for the most part) but the principle applies.
The idea of “our country” is, fundamentally, an expression of identity politics.
Your disagreement is with other’s choice of primary identity, not with “identity politics” generally.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/amp/american-...
I also don't get the "You have to fit in a bucket" theory. What's an example you've experienced?
But the trend being described here is exactly that. Affirmative action, curtailment of free speech etc. Even many diversity initiatives.
It doesn't matter if it discriminates positively, contrary to society's past regressive discrimination. This positive discrimination goes against liberal principles.
Straight from the mouth of Joe Biden: "If you don't know whether to vote for me or Trump you ain't black." Yeah, because a near-80yo white man is obviously the final arbiter of my ethnic identity if I don't conform to his politics.
But the main reason I disagree with this "liberal trend", which I'd call "leftist trend", is that I disagree with them and identify as a liberal.
As OP said, identity politics (i.e. I'm trans instead of I'm American) is extremely polarizing and destabilizing to society.